Excellent article. Great to see Jessica Davis contributing to The Line.
I have one major concern with this new agency:
"The Minister also has the power to direct the Commissioner of the Agency, and this direction is to be made public. Ultimately, the Commissioner establishes what matters should be investigated, but at the direction of the Minister."
This is vaguely written and puts target selection and focus of effort in the hands of the Minister, and therefore the PM of the days. Is this a reasonable cure to what is seen in Ottawa as excessive independence of the RCMP Commissioner? Can politically powerful groups pressure the Minister to look the other way in matters such as terrorist financing? What is to prevent targeting of political opponents?
There are very good reasons we put investigative decisions in the hands of independent decision makers. This is a significant change to law enforcement practice in Canada, and we should be wary - do we really want a political police force directed by the PM of the day? This can go very badly - just look at the current state of the FBI in the US. Is this something we should seek to imitiate?
Here are the relevant bits from the draft legislation:
Role
11 (1) The Commissioner, under the direction of the Minister, has the control and management of the Agency and all matters connected with the Agency.
Directions
(2) The Minister may direct the Commissioner on any matter that, in the Minister’s opinion, materially affects public policy or the strategic direction of the Agency.
Statutory Instruments Act
(3) A direction under subsection (2) is not a statutory instrument for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act.
Direction available to public
(4) As soon as feasible after issuing a direction under subsection (2), the Minister must make it available to the public.
I noted subsection (3) and I wondered what and why. I asked Mr. Google for the definition of a statutory instrument pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act and - non-lawyer that I am - it seems to me that the definition of a SI is such that I cannot see why there needs to be an exception.
All that really proves, however, is that I am a skeptic and by nature suspicious of the federal government, always attributing malintent unless the contrary is to me obvious. That is a character flaw, I admit, but it has over the years served me well.
The RCMP Commissioner, as currently placed within the federal government, does have major challenges maintaining independence. At least the new legislation is honest in formalizing the political nature of the job, or, in its words, the 'deputy head of department'.
One wonders how effective this agency will be in tracking money laundering derived from offshore real estate activity in the lower mainland of B.C. for example and in casino operations throughout Canada but particularly those run and operated either on FN property or by FN groups. Lots of opportunity there never mind the billions of dollars that have disappeared into the T&R guilt trip.
I would add a RICO-like law to reverse the onus on accounting for large amounts of money. "Tell us how you came to have $1B" rather than "we can't prove that the $1B came from crime, so it must be legit."
The amount of money the Federal government spends on a program has no relation to its value. Look no further than the firearms confiscattion program - $760 million for no discernible public purpose. The program is intended to reduce firearm crime, but even the government knows that it won't, it is simply a sop to Quebec. That money would go a long way to controlling the illegal importation of firearms (mainly from the US) which would definitely imporve public safety. The firearms confiscation program does absolutely nothing to improve public safety. But it sure annoys a lot of us law abiding citizens.
"...even as the government cuts back the public service significantly, it is willing to invest $352-million, over five years, to stand up an entirely new agency."
What evidence is there that this government is "cutting back the public service significantly"?
So far, ALL they have done is set up new Agencies.
They seem to believe building a new parallel bureaucracy is "THE" solution to EVERY problem.
Want more houses built? First we have to stand up a new agency,
Want more projects green-lit? First we need to stand up a new agency.
Want to ramp up military spending? First we need to stand up a new agency.
...etc.
Now they're talking about creating "economic zones", which will lead directly to - you guessed it - the need to stand up yet another agency.
The author seems to believe that the Liberals standing up a new agency is somehow something novel, or something they don't reflexively do every second Tuesday.
"The Commissioner establishes what matters should be investigated, but at the direction of the Minister". And therein lies the rub. Given the history of government in dealing with corporate crime, the Canadian public should have little faith in granting a politician the power to decide who gets investigated. Let the Commissioner decide who gets investigated and reports directly to an all-party committee that in turn reports to the public at regular intervals.
I seem to recall a surveillance warrant sitting on Bill Blairs desk for months because the surveillance might tie politicians to Chinese agents. I think that wasn't long after Trudeau turned up on surveillance meeting with, well, Chinese agents.
This sounds like a Canadian copy/clone of the US FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network .). A case of the US has one so Canada should?
I can see a huge opportunity for bureaucratic growth. Getting Canadians to report foreign assets. As is the case for US tax filers with financial type accounts.
The US FinCEN had also introduced requirements to report real estate transfers starting May 2026. However this has been blocked by a US Federal Court decision. I see no qualms about introducing this on the Canadian side by the new agency however.
Thanks for the clarification. Besides reporting thresholds one significant difference is that Canada excludes foreign assets held in RRSPs whereas FinCEN does not. It seems odd that the post discussion says Canada doesn’t do enforcement since Fincen definitely has strong penalties for non compliance. Wouldn’t it be more efficient (a Canadian government blasphemy) for FINTRAC to start doing enforcement?
I wonder how this new agency would interface with the Chinese police, as I understand that there is to be some sort of relationship between law enforcement agencies of China and Canada and that Beijing will decide what information is to be released to Canadian citizens.
> money is not everything for individuals interested in this kind of work, and an important mission, combined with a good organizational culture and minimizing bureaucracy, can go a long way towards keeping a workforce happy
Same problem for other Carney entities like the MPO.
Litmus test for seriousness will be bilingualism requirements and DEI quotas. Early indications from MPO are encouraging, I think?
I was under the belief that the government was conducting a review of the RCMP and its mandate. In my view, this new direction is all about the focus of an organization. In this case it is about the focus of the RCMP. It has too many tasks and is not great at many of them. It needs to get out of contract policing and focus on federal crimes and providing specialized services to all police forces such as criminal intelligence, criminal records, high level forensic services, etc.
Is there a reason they can't move the RCMP staff responsible for financial crimes to the new agency? I can think of a few possibilities, but it would be impolite to suggest them without proof.
Well, lets hope that the new agency is as successful in Canada as the Cambodian authorities have been with the sudden discovery and closing of dozens of scam call centers, where just this month the Khmer Times headlines a story stating that "Over 5,000 Foreign Nationals Arrested in Online Scam Crackdown Last Month". The amazing success of this enforcement is oddly coincidental with the recent boarder fighting with Thailand where Thai fighters (no pun intended) bombed Cambodian casinos and other business compounds. Allegedly, someone in Thailand was jealous about certain 'elites' getting even richer from alleged money laundering. Oddly, that part of the story isn't in the papers. With the Minister able to control the Commissioner who directs the head of the agency, I am sure all of the 'correct' fraudsters will be caught. (Wow, that turned out way mor 'conspiracy theory' sounding than I expected)
I think a reasonable thought process might cause one to think that members of gangs, drug cartels, politicians and other countries are already plotting how to corrupt someone on the inside or to get a present corrupt person on board and or building a team of computer hackers to keep a careful watch on what and who they are investigating.
This is - at the same time - a timely piece and a brief but good discussion of the nature of the problem and the attendant need.
So, some thoughts, notions if you will.
I am struck - as is Dr. Davis, I am certain - by the incredible delay in establishing this organization. Dr. Davis notes that it was in the LPC platform in 2021 and then ..... nothing. Well, nothing to we, the great unwashed. Ms. Davis seems to think that there has been substance occurring in the subsequent five years. Quite frankly, I am uncertain of that. But then, I am by nature skeptical of many (supposed) actions of the government. You know, announcements, even legislation, and even staffing up, but .... results? Time is the tattletale.
Please note that I have described it as an "organization" rather than as some sort of police agency as has Dr. Davis. That may simply be semantics but, well proof and pudding and all that.
As noted above, I am by nature a skeptic. Perhaps the fact that the announcement was, well, pretty much unannounced is a good indication. One item for my skeptical file is that the Commissioner of the Agency (oh, goody, another sinecure available to various "worthies") can be directed by Minister "... to direct the Commissioner of the Agency ..." So, the Minister could, using opaque language, direct the Commissioner to NOT investigate various foreign actors involved in Canadian politics and the public disclosure might be, well, opaque. That certainly does give me pause.
Of course, Dr. Davis states that "... we know it will be a federal law enforcement agency focused on ..." My question is what will be the actual nature of that enforcement? Will it be to issue public sanctions and shaming, initiate criminal cases, levy fines, and so forth?
I note again that I am by nature a skeptic and I further note that this government and it's predecessor have ignored suggestions that a foreign agent lobbying registry would be appropriate. That suggests to me that the influence of foreign actors might not be a subject that this new agency is allowed to examine.
So, to summarize, a very good column but, well, again: proof and pudding.
Excellent article. Great to see Jessica Davis contributing to The Line.
I have one major concern with this new agency:
"The Minister also has the power to direct the Commissioner of the Agency, and this direction is to be made public. Ultimately, the Commissioner establishes what matters should be investigated, but at the direction of the Minister."
This is vaguely written and puts target selection and focus of effort in the hands of the Minister, and therefore the PM of the days. Is this a reasonable cure to what is seen in Ottawa as excessive independence of the RCMP Commissioner? Can politically powerful groups pressure the Minister to look the other way in matters such as terrorist financing? What is to prevent targeting of political opponents?
There are very good reasons we put investigative decisions in the hands of independent decision makers. This is a significant change to law enforcement practice in Canada, and we should be wary - do we really want a political police force directed by the PM of the day? This can go very badly - just look at the current state of the FBI in the US. Is this something we should seek to imitiate?
Here are the relevant bits from the draft legislation:
Role
11 (1) The Commissioner, under the direction of the Minister, has the control and management of the Agency and all matters connected with the Agency.
Directions
(2) The Minister may direct the Commissioner on any matter that, in the Minister’s opinion, materially affects public policy or the strategic direction of the Agency.
Statutory Instruments Act
(3) A direction under subsection (2) is not a statutory instrument for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act.
Direction available to public
(4) As soon as feasible after issuing a direction under subsection (2), the Minister must make it available to the public.
I noted subsection (3) and I wondered what and why. I asked Mr. Google for the definition of a statutory instrument pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act and - non-lawyer that I am - it seems to me that the definition of a SI is such that I cannot see why there needs to be an exception.
All that really proves, however, is that I am a skeptic and by nature suspicious of the federal government, always attributing malintent unless the contrary is to me obvious. That is a character flaw, I admit, but it has over the years served me well.
I get your point, but Brenda Lucki was not at all independent. I guess they could get stuck with an ethical RCMP commissioner.
The RCMP Commissioner, as currently placed within the federal government, does have major challenges maintaining independence. At least the new legislation is honest in formalizing the political nature of the job, or, in its words, the 'deputy head of department'.
One wonders how effective this agency will be in tracking money laundering derived from offshore real estate activity in the lower mainland of B.C. for example and in casino operations throughout Canada but particularly those run and operated either on FN property or by FN groups. Lots of opportunity there never mind the billions of dollars that have disappeared into the T&R guilt trip.
I hope this legislation leads to changes to the Jordan and Stinchcombe requirements to allow prosecution of large, complex criminal offences.
I would add a RICO-like law to reverse the onus on accounting for large amounts of money. "Tell us how you came to have $1B" rather than "we can't prove that the $1B came from crime, so it must be legit."
Indeed - otherwise this new agency will be doomed from the outset.
The amount of money the Federal government spends on a program has no relation to its value. Look no further than the firearms confiscattion program - $760 million for no discernible public purpose. The program is intended to reduce firearm crime, but even the government knows that it won't, it is simply a sop to Quebec. That money would go a long way to controlling the illegal importation of firearms (mainly from the US) which would definitely imporve public safety. The firearms confiscation program does absolutely nothing to improve public safety. But it sure annoys a lot of us law abiding citizens.
"...even as the government cuts back the public service significantly, it is willing to invest $352-million, over five years, to stand up an entirely new agency."
What evidence is there that this government is "cutting back the public service significantly"?
So far, ALL they have done is set up new Agencies.
They seem to believe building a new parallel bureaucracy is "THE" solution to EVERY problem.
Want more houses built? First we have to stand up a new agency,
Want more projects green-lit? First we need to stand up a new agency.
Want to ramp up military spending? First we need to stand up a new agency.
...etc.
Now they're talking about creating "economic zones", which will lead directly to - you guessed it - the need to stand up yet another agency.
The author seems to believe that the Liberals standing up a new agency is somehow something novel, or something they don't reflexively do every second Tuesday.
There are no actions, so journalists can only rely on announcements. Even unfulfilled, year-old announcements like the public service cuts.
"The Commissioner establishes what matters should be investigated, but at the direction of the Minister". And therein lies the rub. Given the history of government in dealing with corporate crime, the Canadian public should have little faith in granting a politician the power to decide who gets investigated. Let the Commissioner decide who gets investigated and reports directly to an all-party committee that in turn reports to the public at regular intervals.
I seem to recall a surveillance warrant sitting on Bill Blairs desk for months because the surveillance might tie politicians to Chinese agents. I think that wasn't long after Trudeau turned up on surveillance meeting with, well, Chinese agents.
Great article - very glad to have Dr. Jessica Davis contributing to The Line.
Which Minister has responsibility for this file?
Another great article from The Line that follows new and fascinating stories. Thank you!
This sounds like a Canadian copy/clone of the US FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network .). A case of the US has one so Canada should?
I can see a huge opportunity for bureaucratic growth. Getting Canadians to report foreign assets. As is the case for US tax filers with financial type accounts.
The US FinCEN had also introduced requirements to report real estate transfers starting May 2026. However this has been blocked by a US Federal Court decision. I see no qualms about introducing this on the Canadian side by the new agency however.
Not quite. Canada already has FINTRAC, which is closer to what FinCEN does. It sounds like this is less about intelligence and more about enforcement.
Thanks for the clarification. Besides reporting thresholds one significant difference is that Canada excludes foreign assets held in RRSPs whereas FinCEN does not. It seems odd that the post discussion says Canada doesn’t do enforcement since Fincen definitely has strong penalties for non compliance. Wouldn’t it be more efficient (a Canadian government blasphemy) for FINTRAC to start doing enforcement?
I wonder how this new agency would interface with the Chinese police, as I understand that there is to be some sort of relationship between law enforcement agencies of China and Canada and that Beijing will decide what information is to be released to Canadian citizens.
Or, will the Minister issue a directive to the Commissioner that covers any relationship or even any investigation involving Chinese actors?
Good article. I fully agree with this:
> money is not everything for individuals interested in this kind of work, and an important mission, combined with a good organizational culture and minimizing bureaucracy, can go a long way towards keeping a workforce happy
Same problem for other Carney entities like the MPO.
Litmus test for seriousness will be bilingualism requirements and DEI quotas. Early indications from MPO are encouraging, I think?
I was under the belief that the government was conducting a review of the RCMP and its mandate. In my view, this new direction is all about the focus of an organization. In this case it is about the focus of the RCMP. It has too many tasks and is not great at many of them. It needs to get out of contract policing and focus on federal crimes and providing specialized services to all police forces such as criminal intelligence, criminal records, high level forensic services, etc.
Is there a reason they can't move the RCMP staff responsible for financial crimes to the new agency? I can think of a few possibilities, but it would be impolite to suggest them without proof.
Competence?
Well, lets hope that the new agency is as successful in Canada as the Cambodian authorities have been with the sudden discovery and closing of dozens of scam call centers, where just this month the Khmer Times headlines a story stating that "Over 5,000 Foreign Nationals Arrested in Online Scam Crackdown Last Month". The amazing success of this enforcement is oddly coincidental with the recent boarder fighting with Thailand where Thai fighters (no pun intended) bombed Cambodian casinos and other business compounds. Allegedly, someone in Thailand was jealous about certain 'elites' getting even richer from alleged money laundering. Oddly, that part of the story isn't in the papers. With the Minister able to control the Commissioner who directs the head of the agency, I am sure all of the 'correct' fraudsters will be caught. (Wow, that turned out way mor 'conspiracy theory' sounding than I expected)
I think a reasonable thought process might cause one to think that members of gangs, drug cartels, politicians and other countries are already plotting how to corrupt someone on the inside or to get a present corrupt person on board and or building a team of computer hackers to keep a careful watch on what and who they are investigating.
This is - at the same time - a timely piece and a brief but good discussion of the nature of the problem and the attendant need.
So, some thoughts, notions if you will.
I am struck - as is Dr. Davis, I am certain - by the incredible delay in establishing this organization. Dr. Davis notes that it was in the LPC platform in 2021 and then ..... nothing. Well, nothing to we, the great unwashed. Ms. Davis seems to think that there has been substance occurring in the subsequent five years. Quite frankly, I am uncertain of that. But then, I am by nature skeptical of many (supposed) actions of the government. You know, announcements, even legislation, and even staffing up, but .... results? Time is the tattletale.
Please note that I have described it as an "organization" rather than as some sort of police agency as has Dr. Davis. That may simply be semantics but, well proof and pudding and all that.
As noted above, I am by nature a skeptic. Perhaps the fact that the announcement was, well, pretty much unannounced is a good indication. One item for my skeptical file is that the Commissioner of the Agency (oh, goody, another sinecure available to various "worthies") can be directed by Minister "... to direct the Commissioner of the Agency ..." So, the Minister could, using opaque language, direct the Commissioner to NOT investigate various foreign actors involved in Canadian politics and the public disclosure might be, well, opaque. That certainly does give me pause.
Of course, Dr. Davis states that "... we know it will be a federal law enforcement agency focused on ..." My question is what will be the actual nature of that enforcement? Will it be to issue public sanctions and shaming, initiate criminal cases, levy fines, and so forth?
I note again that I am by nature a skeptic and I further note that this government and it's predecessor have ignored suggestions that a foreign agent lobbying registry would be appropriate. That suggests to me that the influence of foreign actors might not be a subject that this new agency is allowed to examine.
So, to summarize, a very good column but, well, again: proof and pudding.